Validating the short gambling harm screen against external benchmarks

Abstract

AbstractBackground and aimsThe Short Gambling Harm Screen (SGHS) is currently the most frequently applied dedicated measure of gambling-related harm (GRH), though concerns relating to scale validity have been expressed. The current study aimed to address criticisms that several SGHS items do not depict genuine harms that may occur as a result of gambling, causing the scale to overestimate harm. Specifically, we aimed to test convergence between the SGHS and its constituent items with: (1) wellbeing, and (2) psychological distress.MethodsTo test criterion validity of both the scale and the items, retrospective analyses of survey data from 2,704 Australian adults (36% non-gamblers; 64% gamblers) were conducted. Subjective wellbeing and psychological distress scores, captured using the Personal Wellbeing Index (PWI) and the Kessler-6 Psychological Distress Scale (K6), respectively, were used as external (non-gambling) benchmarks. A total of 428 (16%) respondents scored at least 1 on the SGHS.ResultsMonotonic decreases and increases, corresponding to poorer personal wellbeing and higher psychological distress, were found with each additional SGHS score increase. Gamblers endorsing a single SGHS item reported lower wellbeing and higher psychological distress than both non-gamblers and gamblers who scored zero on the SGHS.Discussion and conclusionThese results show that the SGHS is a valid measure of GRH and contradict suggestions that low scores on the SGHS do not indicate true harm. The SGHS represents a valid and innovative short screening tool to measure GRH in population prevalence studies.